Ace says it’s time to turn the page and talk about the things Obama doesn’t want us to talk about.

I think the debate over Rush has been valuable, if contentious and difficult. But at this point, Ace’s suggestion sounds good to me.

How about the way Obama botched British prime minister Gordon Brown’s visit . . . because he’s overwhelmed?

Sources close to the White House say Mr Obama and his staff have been “overwhelmed” by the economic meltdown and have voiced concerns that the new president is not getting enough rest.

British officials, meanwhile, admit that the White House and US State Department staff were utterly bemused by complaints that the Prime Minister should have been granted full-blown press conference and a formal dinner, as has been customary. They concede that Obama aides seemed unfamiliar with the expectations that surround a major visit by a British prime minister. …

Allies of Mr Obama say his weary appearance in the Oval Office with Mr Brown illustrates the strain he is now under, and the president’s surprise at the sheer volume of business that crosses his desk.

A well-connected Washington figure, who is close to members of Mr Obama’s inner circle, expressed concern that Mr Obama had failed so far to “even fake an interest in foreign policy”. …

The American source said: “Obama is overwhelmed. There is a zero sum tension between his ability to attend to the economic issues and his ability to be a proactive sculptor of the national security agenda.

Let’s put aside arguments about Rush Limbaugh for the time being and recognize that he’s undeniably right about this:

Were the liberals out there hoping Bush succeeded or were they out there trying to destroy him before he was even inaugurated?

I think we all know the answer to that — but here’s some hard proof. Reader jimboster passes along a 2006 poll (.pdf) that proves the point. Check out question 10 — and pay particular attention to how the answers break down by party:

Recall that in August 2006, we were in the thick of a war whose outcome was uncertain. And Democrats didn’t want Bush to succeed.

Have this poll handy the next time some Democrat gets snooty about Rush wanting Obama to fail. It’s proof that the Democrats didn’t want Bush to succeed. They have no standing to claim the moral high ground. None.

Now, in a way, this question is meaningless — because wanting a President to “succeed” (or “fail”) is such a vague concept that it can be infused with several meanings.

But that’s part of the point. Limbaugh might not have been crystal clear about the details of what he meant — but it certainly wasn’t an anti-American sentiment. He clearly wanted what was best for America in the long run. His definition of success was every bit as clear as the definition in the poll.

So if it’s supposedly evil for him to say he wants Obama to fail, why was it OK for Democrats to say they didn’t want Bush to succeed?

Don’t let the Democrats take the moral high ground on this. Even as we perfect our message, it’s vitally important to fight back against those who would distort it.

When I choose leaders and spokesmen for my party and my political movement, I want clarity, vigor, integrity, perspective, and a lack of pettiness. In my view, David Frum — with his comments about Limbaugh’s bulk and personal life — showed pettiness. With his ambivalence about Clinton’s impeachment — not justified by any argument but made as an aside as if to curry favor with the elite — Frum lacks the integrity of a true conservative.

Rush has many of the above qualities — but when he calls liberals “deranged,” I think he lacks perspective. And when he said “I hope he fails,” I think he sacrificed clarity for controversy.

SEARCH AMAZON USING THIS SEARCH BOX:
Purchases made through this search function benefit this site, at no extra cost to you.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.